tv [untitled] November 30, 2011 2:30am-3:00am PST
for the supplemental power, about 200% but this is because of the development of treasure island, so this makes sense. the total cost under the agreement including the proposed five-year extension, this would be from the term from september 1, 2005 through september 30th, 2020 for a total of 15 years, the estimated cost is 550 million. this is 2 million more than the currently estimated amount. for that reason, we are recommending that you amend the ordinance to provide the updated estimate of 15,000,950.
we recommend that you approve the ordinance. >> for my understanding, the department does agree with these recommendations, correct? >> that is correct. >> are there members of the public that wish to speak on this item, item number six? seeing none, this item is closed. >> i think that this helps to clear up a number of my questions. with the litigation that is going on with the eir and d.c. court appeal and a number of financing issues -- and the ceqa appeal, there's the possibility that this will not happen for five years. what will happen if there is not a need for additional electric
there? >> the contract as it stands is an as needed contract. this allows us to contract for going up to the market and providing additional power if we need this. the way we handle this on a provisional basis is that we give them a yearly forecast of what we will be needing for that year and that is what they go out the market and try to have the low projections that we provide them. should there be a change, that would be provided in our forecast to them. the other thing that is important to note is all the costs that have been presented are recoverable by the rates that we charge to the customers at treasure island.
there is little risk to the city in terms of cost. there is no minimum requirement for us to purchase any of the energy, which is the other thing that is good about the contract. >> thank you. >> the expiration date is 2015, isn't it? >> the existing contract, yes. "so, we had passed an ordinance about five years ago that said that once the agreement expired, areas that will then come under the jurisdiction of the city and county of san francisco and this was once a military area becomes a public power designated area and that is our first right of refusal based on the ordinance that the board of supervisors passed. i did not hear you mention that.
>> you are correct. the city administrative code requires that an analysis be performed. we are working with the development team in preparing. >> my colleagues here were not on the board of supervisors at the time. this was a robust discussion back then. we wanted to make sure that as areas such as hunters point
through its redevelopment conversion of the former naval base into the city and county jurisdiction and treasure island that these become public power first right of refusal by the city so it does not come under the jurisdiction of pg%e. i want to make sure that that is attacked to this -- attached to this discussion. this makes complete sense to me but i'm hoping that there is a departure point from our moving into our own municipal-it ministered program, and that is what my expectation is in this discussion. >> thank you, supervisor.
we are doing very exciting things with public power. earlier this year, we adopted our first rate for the hunters point shipyard. because of our efficient system, we were able to offer rates through public power that are 10% cheaper than pg&e's rates. that is an example where the commission did take that directive to heart and we are indeed considering that for a treasure island. >> this is not something that you should be shy about. this conversation is almost a perfect candidate explaining how you have a self-contained area and it pre existed on an energy contract, then you can maintain that level of separation by its then converting into a municipal public power contract. >> we are indeed looking at
that. >> if there are no other questions before us, this item is before us. colleagues, can we take the budget analyst recommendations without objection? we will do that. because there is a change of the not to exceed amount, this would require a continuance. if we can continue this to our next meeting which will not be this coming meeting but wednesday, november 30th. thank-you. ok, item number seven. >> item number7, resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco puc to execute the first amendment to the memorandum of understanding with the alameda county resource conservation district for an amount not to exceed 775,000 and with a total duration of 14 years.
>> thank you very much for this item. we have with us a representative from the puc water enterprise. >> i have been here now for just over six years. one of the things that was made apparent to me was the significance of the alameda creek watershed to our organization. my group manages primarily the resources outside of the city and county boundaries including the watershed. it was almost three years ago that we took our first mou to our commission for approval. we did that for a couple of reasons. i want to highlight those because they are both relevant. first and foremost, what it shows in green is the land that the city owns.
a lot of the watershed is in santa clara county. our county approached a sister agency in santa clara county and they agreed that we should work with just the one and they would provide out reach. we have been doing this now for just over three years. as a consequence, they provide a really unique opportunity to work directly with contractors and agencies to implement the project. the first was to provide outreach up to the top of the watershed and to contact the private land owners and talk about easements. the goal is to not make all of
this green. we just want to see it protected. we have been very busy for the past five and a half years and that has cleared all of our environmental permitting hurdles but we continue to protect the resources in this watershed. when it became clear to us that the mitigation requirements would extend both in time and increase the dollar amount come we knew we had to take this back to our commission. greenough that our permit conditions drove the date and the amendment.
-- we know that our permit conditions drove the date. >> what would this go towards? >> sure. this is broken up in the budget analyst report the proposed increase for $363,000 is directly associated with the mitigation requirement. i'm happy to go into that it is helpful. these are things that we have committed to for the implementation of our construction projects. the $412,000 would continue the upper watershed. this would be narrowly focused working in coordination with our staff and other statements in the watershed to continue to meet the small groups and talk
about different opportunities to protect the resources. at the same meaning that our hurt this year, there was a separate agreement that did not require any funding but it does describe our intent and that was the alameda creek partnership which include a conservancy, the land trust, and our staff. this has taken longer to get traction with the private landowners and i am happy to relay that one of the things that we tried to highlight was the recent acquisition and we just purchased the property this year and there is another one coming right behind it. there was a process and we went right through it and it made sense for up to manage the site as though it was not contiguous with the rest of our watershed
land. the additional funding is to continue that funding through time said that we can have a contract that we need to continue to out reached. >> with the we go to the budget analyst report? >> the additional requested authorization includes 575,000 of funds previously appropriated by the board of supervisor. the additional $200,000 would be from future water enterprise revenues which were subject to annual appropriation. >> thank you. why don't we open this up for private comment -- public comment? public comment is closed. we have a motion to send item 7
forward with recommendations and we will do that with recommendations. thank you. can you call item number 8 and 9? >> item number8, resolution approving the issuance of not to exceed $8,291,000 aggregate principal amount of qualified energy conservation bonds to be issued by the public until this commission of the city and county of san francisco. item number9, resolution approving the issuance of not to exceed $6,600,000 aggregate principal amount of the new clean renewable energy bonds to be issued by the public utilities commission of the city and county of san francisco. >> we have been before you a couple of times over the past years as we sold debt. before you today is a continuation of what we have found to be the lowest costs
available of borrowing that will insure savings for our ratepayers. there are two items before you. on item 8 and nine, the total request and approval to issue from your committee and the board of supervisors is a total of $14.9 million. one is a qualified energy bond of $8.3 million. the second is a $6.6 million clean renewable funding. both of these main that the lowest cost of borrowing that we can get right now which provides 70% interest subsidies. the term is 16 years. what this means is that we estimate between 1%-2% to be the annual cost. this is funding very important projects for the city and county. the bonds will fund the green
components of the new headquarters building which puc is nearly complete in its construction. solar power, wind power, the treatment plants, also the solar controls and the state of the art, a heating, ventilation. the clean renewal energy bond funding is something important to the generation here in san francisco. the first project is a very exciting project. the water is going through the pipelines. the speed of that is making hydro electric energy. city hall will be having new solar panels on the south side. of the total is $6.6 million
low-cost borrowing in order to fund those key projects for the city. the vendor has been selected through a competitive process and we set out a request for proposals to 20 firms. we selected bank of america because they were the lowest cost firm. we had the most experience in dealing with the renewable energy bonds. they worked with us in 2008 when we issued our power bonds. the two items before you today relate to power, specifically anticipated sale later this year as well as more next year. we will be coming back before you sometime in may to visit about water revenue bonds for our planned issues and also we will be looking at our waste
water enterprises well to keep on track with our capital improvements in waste-water. before you today are both power bonds. i would like to think the budget analyst for the report. >> a quick question on the qualified energy conservation bond. can you tell us how the federal tax credits were there? >> the way that they work is that they are allowed a 7% reimbursement for the issuer. this is to reduce the effective cost of borrowing. this is the current vintage of the tax credit bonds. >> thank-you. if we don't have further questions at the moment, let's go to the budget analyst report. >> on page 6 of the report,
regarding this file based on the federal subsidy, the total estimated debt over 16 years is 9 million, 150,000. this includes the estimated interest costs, and the estimated principle of the $8 million. regarding the other file, on page 8 of the report, similarly based on the subsidy, the total cost over 60 years would be $7 million, including the estimated total interest cost -- with a total principal cost of 6,600,000. we recommend that you approve both of these proposals.
>> thank you very much. why don't we open this for public comment? and other members of the public who wish to speak on items #8 and no. 9? >> good morning. i would like to oppose all resolutions, for the same reasons i oppose these two, for item number two. there is no need to repeat that. we're talking about $16 million, i am surprised there are not that many people here to question the spending. it is boring to read over what happened in harrisburg, pennsylvania and jefferson county, alabama.
i am learning a lot by examining these situations. we're going to allow $15 million to be approved with just a few comments being said, and i look around in this room, and it is discouraging that no one else is coming here to comment about $15 million. in the spirit of occupy san francisco, i am the only one who will speak out against -- opposing $16 million. the biggest evidence to support what i have just said is that even walter does not think that this is interesting enough. >> thank you. and are there other members of the public who wish to speak on these items? public comment is closed.
just a question, with regards to the investment that we're looking at, with the proposals to these headquarters, it also wondering, we are making an investment to find solar energy, for the energy consumption at these buildings. we're not looking so much into the solar panels and the construction. >> this has been effects, having electric generation, locally. there are the other distribution costs. solar panels on top of city hall allows for us to have a very efficient cost or service. this will be more expensive on
the kilowatt issue. where this benefits both people of san francisco and system reliability, they have the complementary form of generation, to complement the hydro-electric facilities. so this is really the best that we can get right now, based on the mix of energy that we have in keeping with the standard of being green, and as affordable as possible. >> in terms of the city government usage of electricity, do we exceed this capacity? >> we would have to purchase the electricity. we have had a great deal of rainfall and we have had extra hydro-electric energy that we
were able to send to the market to create revenue. we have some surplus, but in the typical year, we have to buy and we will benefit from this. and in the drought years we will benefit from having our own reliable, renewable energy in the city. >> thank you. we have opened this item for public comment. and these two items are before us. we have a motion to send these items forward with recommendations. item number 10. >> the existing contracts between the city and county of san francisco with the department of elections, for an amount not to exceed $400
million. >> thank you very much. >> the resolution today is a two-part resolution. the current voting system on the contract, this is a four-year contract. this allowed for two one-year extensions. there is a second question for the board to consider. i request this beyond the one- year extension. we purchased the system in 2008. this was in april 2005.
it took this long to execute the contract, and when we used this system for the first presidential primary in 2008. the purchase of the system was nearly $9 million. we are now renting mess. we bought most of this, and the purchase of the equipment was by mostly the federal and state grant funds. the actual equipment purchase was not from the general fund. this was basically free to the city. in my thinking, for us to have a four-year contract for a system costing $9 million is probably not the best place for the city. it makes sense for us to
exercise these options so that, additionally we can extend out for three years, to go through the selection process, and the contract talks. the one thing about this system, it is the only system in the country that can run this system. there is nothing out there to replace the current system. the current vendor has a system includes the rank-choice voting, for this process. the system that we have is what
we can use for san francisco the system that we bought only four years ago. i asked for the board to approve this option, contract the us for an additional three years. i don't know of any other funding source and no one has come forward to say that the money is available for new system. >> can i ask a few questions? but the conversation that we will have, many of us are wondering if we should do this, and if this fits into what we are trying to do. we actually purchased the system and own the equipment that we